01254 82288001254 822880
August 6, 2025 
Daniel Lee The dust is settling following the long-awaited Supreme Court judgment on motor finance commission, and while some media outlets spun it as a victory for lenders, the deeper reality paints a very different picture — and one that could prove devastating for the finance industry.
Because in defending themselves, dealerships and lenders have openly admitted that they were never acting in the interests of the consumer.
They were acting solely in their own commercial interests — maximising profit, manipulating interest rates, and disguising hefty commissions — and, crucially, failing to disclose the amount of commission to the very people funding those profits: you, the customer.
Throughout the case, lenders and dealers repeatedly argued that they didn’t owe a duty of care to customers.
They weren’t providing advice, they claimed. They weren’t acting for the benefit of the customer. Their role, they insisted, was purely to sell.
But this defence is a double-edged sword.
If dealerships were acting in their own interests, and not as impartial brokers, then FCA rules (ICOBS 4.4.1R) required them to disclose the commission arrangements, including the amount, whenever that commission could influence the outcome of the sale.
🔍 FCA ICOBS 4.4.1R (as in force in May 2018):
“A firm must disclose the existence and nature of any commission or other remuneration… where that commission could affect the firm’s impartiality.”
So, the lenders’ own argument confirms that disclosure was required.
They’ve essentially admitted that they’ve breached the regulator’s rules.
Because disclosing it would receive a commission to enable to it sell the vehicle it wanted to sell would have raised too many questions.
It would have revealed the true cost of the deal.
It would have exposed that customers were being charged inflated interest rates to fund commission — and that they may not have received the best deal they qualified for.
💬 Let’s be honest: the commission model existed solely to reward dealerships for selling more expensive finance products.
That is the heart of the issue, and it’s why millions of motor finance agreements have been mis-sold.
With the Supreme Court judgment now in place and lenders having admitted that impartiality was never part of the transaction, serious questions must now be asked:
This isn’t a technical argument anymore.
This is about fairness.
This is about tens of millions of consumers who may have paid more than they should have.
This is about systemic, profit-driven misconduct disguised as routine practice.
And it’s about whether the UK’s regulatory bodies have the courage to stand up for consumers — or whether they’ll fold again under the weight of financial lobbying.
The Supreme Court has spoken.
Now we wait to see whether the industry and its regulators will listen — or continue the cover-up.
...
August 5, 2025 Daniel Lee The long-awaited Supreme Court judgment on motor finance has finally landed — and despite the misleading headlines initially pushed out by some of the mainstream media, the decision confirms what campaigners, claim firms, and consumer law experts have been saying for years.
This is a huge win for consumers.
The Supreme Court considered whether Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCAs) and other undisclosed motor finance commissions could amount to an “unfair relationship” under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
This isn’t a ruling that shuts down redress. On the contrary — it opens the floodgates.
Soon after the ruling, several media outlets reported that the Supreme Court had “closed the door” to most motor finance claims.
That narrative was wrong.
While the Court rejected some legal arguments surrounding bribery, the judgment clearly affirms that consumers have rights under the unfair relationship provisions of the Consumer Credit Act when faced with hidden commissions and inflated costs.
Millions of agreements may have been mis-sold, and now that fact is confirmed by the highest court in the country.
Let’s be clear. This wasn’t brought to light by regulators or banks.
It was claims management companies and law firms who:
And yet, the media and lenders continue to attempt to discredit the very firms who have once again uncovered another industry scandal — just as they did with PPI.
The ruling now puts pressure on dealerships and finance providers to:
The days of pretending these commissions had no impact are over.
The Financial Conduct Authority is now in the process on consulting on a redress scheme.
However, it has initially suggested that most consumers will receive less than £950.00, raising serious concerns that it will seek to protect lenders further.
The FCA has suggested that a £10,000 motor finance agreement, paid over four years, and where a Discretionary Commission Arrangement applied, resulted in consumers overpaying interest by £1,100.00.
That being the case, how can the FCA suggest that most consumers would receive less than £950.00?
We therefore call upon the FCA to stop protecting lenders, and focus on the consumers that have been left out of pocket by this latest scandal.
Only then will true justice have been served.
The motor finance commission scandal is real.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that unfair relationships exist when consumers were left in the dark about commission structures that affected their monthly payments.
The media misreported it. The lenders tried to hide it. But consumer advocates exposed it — and now, the nation knows the truth.
Now is the time to act.
...
August 4, 2025 Daniel Lee Martin Lewis has long been hailed as the voice of the consumer—a trusted figure helping households save money.
But when it comes to the motor finance commission scandal, serious questions are now being asked about whose side Mr Lewis is really on.
It sounds unthinkable right? But let’s look at the facts.
The upcoming Supreme Court judgment on hidden motor finance commissions could unlock billions in compensation for consumers who were charged inflated interest without being told about the backdoor payments made to car dealers.
And yet, Martin Lewis—despite his public image—has not backed the strongest legal arguments or consumer positions.
In fact, he has argued that a judgment in favour of consumers may go too far.
Why? One theory is painfully simple.
Martin Lewis may have made his name as a savvy money-saving guru, but the financial engine behind his empire was commission.
The MoneySavingExpert.com website, which he later sold to Moneysupermarket Group for up to £87 million, profited by earning undisclosed commissions every time a user signed up to products via their links—including insurance, energy providers, broadband deals, loans and more.
Sound familiar?
The very undisclosed commission model that has now been found unlawful in motor finance sales may have propped up the MSE business model in the past.
If the Supreme Court rules that such commission structures are fundamentally unfair and mis-sold, it could set a precedent—opening the door for retrospective complaints not only against lenders and car dealers, but possibly against MSE or affiliated parties for failing to ensure transparency.
If that wasn’t bad enough, Martin Lewis—alongside MoneySavingExpert—published a DIY complaint template for consumers to submit a claim to motor finance providers.
The result? Catastrophic.
Well over a million consumers have now received near-identical rejections from lenders. Why?
This has created a false sense of “nothing owed” among consumers who may very well have valid claims worth thousands of pounds.
Was this incompetence, not knowing the legal arguments, or was it a strategic play to reduce complaint volumes or protect vested interests.
Let’s be clear: Martin Lewis has helped millions reduce their household bills, something that he should be applauded for.
But that doesn’t make him immune to criticism—or above scrutiny.
When consumers are being misled, denied justice, or pointed toward ineffective complaint methods, it is vital we ask why, and who benefits.
The looming Supreme Court decision could shake the foundations of decades of commission-based selling practices.
And Martin Lewis might just have more reason than most to want the old system protected.
...
August 4, 2025 Daniel Lee Once again, Rachel Reeves has shown her true colours — not as a guardian of consumer justice, but as a defender of the financial elite.
In her latest astonishing attempt to undermine the Supreme Court’s authority in the unfolding motor finance commission scandal, Reeves has crossed a line. It is a line that demands only one consequence…Her immediate resignation.
This is no longer a question of political misjudgment.
This is a deliberate, dangerous move that sides with profit-driven lenders over millions of wronged consumers.
Reeves has once again bowed to lobbyist pressure, amplifying their tired and false narrative — that a Supreme Court ruling could “destroy” the motor finance sector.
Let’s be clear: the motor finance sector is not at risk from the Supreme Court enforcing fairness and redress.
What is truly at risk is the unchecked profiteering that has flourished in the shadows for over a decade.
Rachel Reeves’ latest intervention is not about economic stability.
It’s about preserving a rigged status quo that has enabled car dealerships and lenders to extract billions in hidden commissions, completely unknown to the consumers footing the bill.
This is not leadership. This is capitulation to a corporate lobbying machine.
This is also another example of Reeves lack of financial understanding, given the compensation paid to consumers during the PPI scandal served to support the country by putting money back into people’s pockets.
For years, the UK motor finance market operated in a murky world of undisclosed commission structures, inflated interest rates, and deliberate deception of consumers.
This isn’t speculation — it’s confirmed by whistleblowers, journalists, and legal documentation.
Yet Reeves now echoes the baseless claim that a Supreme Court ruling in favour of consumers would “threaten the stability” of this market. Nonsense.
Even if, in the extremely unlikely scenario, a few lenders collapse under the weight of their own misconduct — so be it.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.
If certain lenders cannot survive without deceiving consumers or relying on exploitative commission practices, then their exit should be welcomed, not feared.
The demand for motor finance will not disappear.
Other lenders — better lenders — will emerge to meet that demand in a cleaner, more transparent market.
Rachel Reeves’ repeated interference — from soft-pedalling compensatory interest rates to undermining legal scrutiny — is not just inappropriate, it is disgraceful.
She has repeatedly chosen the side of the banks, the lenders, the commission-takers — and not once the side of the average motorist paying over the odds.
This latest intervention isn’t just tone-deaf, it’s morally bankrupt.
A true public servant would support accountability, not shield the guilty from the consequences of their own actions.
A Chancellor should be a bulwark against injustice, not a mouthpiece for profiteers.
Rachel Reeves has shown where her loyalties lie. And it’s not with you, the taxpayer, the consumer.
It’s time she immediately stepped aside and made way for someone willing to stand up to corporate power, not be led by it.
...
July 23, 2025 Daniel Lee
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is supposed to stand as an independent, fair, and consumer-focused body to resolve financial disputes.
Yet again, it has proven itself unfit for that role.
In what can only be described as one of the most astonishingly flawed decisions to date, FOS investigator Blaine McInarlin has rejected a complaint that clearly evidenced irresponsible lending by First Response Finance.
Our client approached us after becoming concerned that his motor finance agreement should never have been approved.
We carried out our usual detailed checks—and those concerns were completely justified.
Here’s what we found:
In short: this was as clear indication of a consumer in significant financial hardship.
What did First Response Finance do? They gave him even more credit.
Despite the clear red flags, FOS investigator Blaine McInarlin attempted to reject the complaint!
Not only did Blaine fail to take into account the unemployment status, or the advice received from Citizens Advice, but there was also a total lack of recognition that the consumer was already in a seriously vulnerable financial position.
This was an active affordability issue in progress—and First Response Finance either didn’t care or chose to ignore it.
And FOS… has attempted to support the actions of First Response.
Blaine’s decision is not just disappointing—it is a damning indictment of the Ombudsman’s continued failure to protect the very people it exists to serve.
This is not a grey area.
This is not borderline affordability.
This is a case where credit should never have been granted.
And yet, Blaine McInarlin’s judgment calls that entire principle into question.
We have, of course, appealed the decision.
But this case joins a long and growing list of Financial Ombudsman failures that continue to undermine public confidence in what should be an independent watchdog.
When vulnerable consumers are left abandoned by a service designed to help them, it is more than an error.
It’s a systemic failure.
It’s a disgrace.
It’s time for accountability.
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
The truth is out — and it’s damning.
The BBC Radio 4 documentary has done what regulators failed to do for years: reveal the scale, depth, and intent behind the motor finance commission scandal that has cost consumers billions in additional interest payments.
This exposé doesn’t just point the finger at lenders and dealerships.
It also exposes how the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) and the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) were made aware of the problem as far back as 2015 — but instead of taking action, they seemingly tried to shut it down.
👉 Read our breakdown of how motor finance commission worked
Long before the scandal made its way to headlines and courtrooms, both the FCA and FOS were alerted by consumers and representatives about what was happening.
A whistleblower — having been told by a dealership about what had happened to his mother’s finance agreement — provided detailed evidence of:
But what did the regulators do?
When presented with evidence, the FCA did not launch an immediate investigation. Instead:
This is not a case of being unaware. This is a case of being willfully passive — or worse, deliberately silent.
The Financial Ombudsman Service, which had the power to intervene in individual complaints and spot systemic issues, also failed to act.
In fact, after initial communications with the whistleblower, FOS also ceased further dialogue.
When both the regulator (FCA) and the dispute resolution body (FOS) are made aware of a systemic practice causing financial harm, they have an obligation to act.
Instead:
This documentary now confirms what many suspected: the regulators knew — and they tried to sweep it under the carpet.
As more and more complaints and claims started being submitted, the regulator was forced to act.
The evidence is now overwhelming and the scale of the scandal has the potential to eclipse PPI, with the regulator now admitting that up to 99% of all motor finance agreements sold to consumers between 2007 to 2024 having been subject to some form of undisclosed commission.
Let’s cut to the chase, commission is only in place to incentivise dealerships to propose certain finance agreements to consumers, generally more expensive than the consumer actually qualified for.
We’ve uncovered dealership documentation, commission brackets, finance interest inflation, and FCA breaches that mirror exactly what the BBC documentary has now confirmed.
The only difference is it has now been broadcast to the nation.
This scandal is not just about lenders offering commission (bribes) and dealerships taking it.
It’s about a regulatory ecosystem that, when given the opportunity to protect consumers, chose silence.
But now — thanks to brave whistleblowers, persistent campaigning and increasing legal pressure — the lid has been blown off.
If you have had motor finance between 2007 to 2024 it is likely that you may have:
We’re helping consumers fight back.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
